Bingo. Motorola makes cable boxes, dvr/pvr's, modems etc...
Google wants to be in your living room selling content. Thats the next battle ground. The problem is that the cable companies who control the pipe also require their hardware and that hardware is generally manufactured by Moto.
By buying Moto, Google can provide the box and sneak software in there.
Wish Apple would have bought Moto. I don't want GoogleTV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
Google know this and this is I think they didn't buy Motorola for patents.
I don't know the details of all the various disputes going on, but the distinction here seems reasonable.
So far Apple's dispute with sammy and others has centred around the manner in which their products are being mimicked in one way or another, that effects how Apple and "the consumer" differentiates their products from others.
Google/Moto and Samsung on the other hand are trying to leverage tech standards they've developed and licence in defence of design practices intended to affect market perception.
Ultimately, if the two are confused tech standards become weapons that have the power to lock competitors out completely, or threaten them into submission when the holder wants a piece of the blockbuster product action that Apple or others have developed on top of those standards. That definitely seems anticompetitive.
Apples successful products with consumers is derived from their design prowess not the necessary standard tech that products need to conform to or are constructed with.
Exactly, those of you who don't agree with Apple on this one need to re-read the above post. Apple has never used standards related patents as a club to prevent anyone from competing in a market, but Samsung and Motorola are trying to do just that. Just as Microsoft strong armed the world into accepting Windows as a standard, and look at the wonderful innovation that came from them! (sarcasm) Samsung and Motorola are the ones who can't play on a level playing field. They are failing so they want to force Apple to allow them to copy Apple's products. How is this correct behavior by any stretch of the imagination?
Say companies A, B and C have competing technologies to accomplish the same task.
Company B submits its technology as a standard!
It gets accepted as a/the standard.
This can have one or more the following effects:
1) A's & C's technologies are diminished or abandoned because they are non-standard
Or in the case of Apple, continue to use their own technology wherever possible instead of using a standard because it helps them lock in.
Quote:
2) B gets a cash cow -- every competitor must license the patent
See answer to number 1. Also Realize that If Motorola and Samsung are suing Apple NOW it means that Apple owes them, what? 4 years of payments? That's from before Android was picked up by either company.
Quote:
3) B reduces or eliminates the competitors and/or competitive devices
No. This isn't the case. Some tech became standards for reasons other than it was the best available. Standards just make things compatible.
Quote:
4) B gains some competitive advantages:
--- Lower costs, as they don't have to pay for a license for their own technology
--- Head-start and/or first-to-market, as they are in a better position to exploit their own technology
F/Rand patents have a very low revenue stream compared to non frand patents. By the time they're frand, any head start is also gone.
Quote:
5) B establishes a base-line on which to build additional technology and/or standards
Not relevant.
Quote:
6) B gets a seat at the table as its technology must be used in competitors devices -- just as competitors technologies must be used in B's devices
Not necessarily. And ALL of the "advantages" you listed were from a world where tech companies didn't use thier Non-Frand patents to destroy one another. It's much more profitable to Patent something and NOT make it a standard. Because Companies can REFUSE to license it, and all you get if you win is a backlog of payments, that you have to take them to court to get. When They can sue you OVER A SQUARE.
Quote:
This last, is what Sammy and MMI appear to be trying to unfairly use as leverage/protection in litigation involving patented non-standard technology.
Apple is asserting that no other device can be a touchscreen dominated slab, no matter the aspect ratio, thickness, or back design. They are going after the XOOM for community design violations.
How is a Square not "standard?"
As for why I'm here, it's clear that most people who comment here don't actually read news anywhere else (nothing else explains their opinions). So If I can give them a little taste of something approaching different with just a few minutes a day, why not.
Believe it or not, you can still LIKE, even LOVE a product and question some of their choices.
Apple is asserting that no other device can be a touchscreen dominated slab, no matter the aspect ratio, thickness, or back design. They are going after the XOOM for community design violations.
Once again, please provide the patent where Apple claims that.
U.S. Application Serial No. 85/299,118 for the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with evenly rounded corners [the iPhone 4]
First, please provide the actual patent that is in question. Things get changed all the time between application and issuance.
More importantly, look at what that says. The patent is not for a rectangle with rounded corners. It specifically says "THE CONFIGURATION OF a rectangular...."
In spite of all the endless misinformation here, just the title shows that Apple is not claiming to have a patent on a rectangle with rounded corners - which is what a bunch of people claim.
What is relevant is what Apple actually claims, not what hordes of mindless Apple-hater SAY that Apple's patents claim. So, in the future, please provide copies of Apple's patents before you're going to pretend that they say something.
Exactly, those of you who don't agree with Apple on this one need to re-read the above post. Apple has never used standards related patents as a club to prevent anyone from competing in a market, but Samsung and Motorola are trying to do just that. Just as Microsoft strong armed the world into accepting Windows as a standard, and look at the wonderful innovation that came from them! (sarcasm) Samsung and Motorola are the ones who can't play on a level playing field. They are failing so they want to force Apple to allow them to copy Apple's products. How is this correct behavior by any stretch of the imagination?
How is suing anyone (only when they start making money) simply because their phones/tablets look like a Square right? Companies that you've REFUSED to pay licensing fees to for tech you stole from them.
Apple is using their patents like a club. No, they're not recognized as "standards," at least not yet, but they're broad enough and Vital enough (such as a square) that without them it would effectively lock all their competitors out of the market. You can point to Touchwiz and the GalaxyS line, and if that's all they were going after, you might have a point. But Apple's going after Motorola, they're going after HTC, they're going after Stock android devices that have a KEYBOARD attached.
Why? Because the front of them looks like a square with rounded corners. Or they somehow got a patent for unlocking the touchscreen USING the touchscreen (even with prior art existing). No, it's not "standard" patents. But that doesn't make it right, especially considering Apple isn't paying these companies for the patents to begin with.
Once again, please provide the patent where Apple claims that.
The link has been provided to you. You're on a modern browser. You are capable of leaving AI I know it's hard.
Also, look at their Community design application for the EU. IT's a rectangle with rounded corners. Buttons, screen, bezel, etc are not part of it. (This is also featured on Foss Patents and it easily googled)
People have sent you the links countless times. You ignore them.
No, it's because he's been given the link countless times. I've provided him with dozens of other links in the past for other arguments. He doesn't read them, or outright ignores the post we give them to him in. Why spend time finding the SAME information over and over again if he just ignores it?
Again, Apple is suing for Community Design violations for the XOOM. How in the world would someone mistake that for an ipad?
As for why I'm here, it's clear that most people who comment here don't actually read news anywhere else (nothing else explains their opinions). So If I can give them a little taste of something approaching different with just a few minutes a day, why not.
Believe it or not, you can still LIKE, even LOVE a product and question some of their choices.
I have no problem liking a product and questioning the choices of the company who provides the product.
For example, I like Google Search... but question their ethics and the business acumen that resulted in the MMI fiasco.
So, since you have access to superior news sources, why not share them:
First, please provide the actual patent that is in question. Things get changed all the time between application and issuance.
More importantly, look at what that says. The patent is not for a rectangle with rounded corners. It specifically says "THE CONFIGURATION OF a rectangular...."
In spite of all the endless misinformation here, just the title shows that Apple is not claiming to have a patent on a rectangle with rounded corners - which is what a bunch of people claim.
What is relevant is what Apple actually claims, not what hordes of mindless Apple-hater SAY that Apple's patents claim. So, in the future, please provide copies of Apple's patents before you're going to pretend that they say something.
JrAgosta, see post 101 above. It's got the link to the Community Design Patent that Apple is using as a club against Samsung in Germany. It only references the general shape, rectangular, and the general corner shape, slightly rounded. Absolutely nothing to do with anything other than a rectangular, rounded corner slab shape for a portable computer. According to Apple, no one can build a portable computer in the shape of a rounded corner rectangle since they were the originator. Simple as that.
The link has been posted more than once, yet you claim no one's pointed you to it. I'm beginning to wonder if you're purposely acting as tho it doesn't exist, a kind of inconvenient truth.
Just to be completely clear so that you don't misunderstand again.
From the tone of your posts on this topic, it's plainly obvious that you'd consider it ridiculous if Apple actually had a patent for this. Which they do.
I have no problem liking a product and questioning the choices of the company who provides the product.
For example, I like Google Search... but question their ethics and the business acumen that resulted in the MMI fiasco.
So, since you have access to superior news sources, why not share them:
Where do you get your news?
Engadget, TIMN, Android Central, TiPB, CNN, Cnet, Groklaw, and over a dozen others (Rss readers are a wonderful thing) I occasionally even Read Fosspatents and AI. The key is to get it from several sources, not just a single one, or a single bent, like most of the people here.
I've been on AI for years, even though I only recently registered. They've gone from a great "Apple related" news source to one that is little more than a spin machine that seems to spend just as much (or more) time covering the actions of Apple's competitors than they do covering how it relates to Apple, or even Apple related news. Sure, it's good to be apprised of what Apple's competitors are doing, but not when the source you're getting that information from is a site who will make sure everything is spun to put Apple in the best possible light.
When Samsung unveiled their Galaxy S/Touchwiz devices, it was Android blogs that started putting out the first "we're not sure about this" type articles, questioning samsung's moves, and saying that it was inviting a lawsuit. Tell me, when was the last time AI posted something that questioned a move by Apple? Even recently, where a judge said that 9-10 claims against samsung weren't strong enough for any preliminary injunction, and said that he didn't feel his opinions would change (and that at least one could easily be invalidated), AI ran the story as a "Major Victory" for apple because they got the injunction on a SINGLE patent, one that Samsung could have changed before the deadline (and thus shipments remain uninterrupted)
I've done so several times. but I guess one time more won't hurt . . .
This is what Apple is alleging against Sammy in Germany, for which they were given an injunction. That's it. No touchscreen or gesture patents, no icon similarity. Simply the rectangular shape with rounded corners, which Apple claims to have the sole rights to. Now that I've led you to the source JrAgosta, does this seem reasonable to you?
No, it's because he's been given the link countless times. I've provided him with dozens of other links in the past for other arguments. He doesn't read them, or outright ignores the post we give them to him in. Why spend time finding the SAME information over and over again if he just ignores it?
Again, Apple is suing for Community Design violations for the XOOM. How in the world would someone mistake that for an ipad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
JrAgosta, see post 101 above. It's got the link to the Community Design Patent that Apple is using as a club against Samsung in Germany. It only references the general shape, rectangular, and the general corner shape, slightly rounded. Absolutely nothing to do with anything other than a rectangular, rounded corner slab shape for a portable computer. According to Apple, no one can build a portable computer in the shape of a rounded corner rectangle since they were the originator. Simple as that.
The link has been posted more than once, yet you claim no one's pointed you to it. I'm beginning to wonder if you're purposely acting as tho it doesn't exist, a kind of inconvenient truth.
Just to be completely clear so that you don't misunderstand again.
From the tone of your posts on this topic, it's plainly obvious that you'd consider it ridiculous if Apple actually had a patent for this. Which they do.
The problem is that none of those are the 'patent' in question. That is a certificate of registration. The supporting documents are noticeably missing.
That's the problem with you Apple haters. You find some fragment of information and immediately start blaring crap like "Apple patented a rectangle with rounded corners" without any supporting evidence.
Please provide a copy of the PATENT that you're claiming exists. Not a trademark registration - which is an ENTIRELY different matter.
The problem is that none of those are the 'patent' in question. That is a certificate of registration. The supporting documents are noticeably missing.
Please provide a copy of the PATENT that you're claiming exists. Not a trademark registration - which is an ENTIRELY different matter.
\Dude, that IS the Community Design Patent awarded to Apple. The actual honest-to-God "certificate of registration" that is the only document the EU sends as proof of ownership of a Community Design Patent. A copy of which was given to the German court as evidence. All four pages of it. It's not some unrelated supporting document. It' the actual document you keep claiming doesn't really exist, since it would be stupid for anyone to allow a patent on a rectangular shape with rounded corners.
And if you just don't understand what the document you're looking at is, here's an explanation of the EU patent law as regards Community Designs.
\Dude, that IS the Community Design Patent awarded to Apple. The actual honest-to-God "certificate of registration" that is the only document the EU sends as proof of ownership of a Community Design Patent. A copy of which was given to the German court as evidence. All four pages of it. It's not some unrelated supporting document. It' the actual document you keep claiming doesn't really exist, since it would be stupid for anyone to allow a patent on a rectangular shape with rounded corners.
And if you just don't understand what the document you're looking at is, here's an explanation of the EU patent law as regards Community Designs.
I've decided that you're being purposely obtuse at this point. Perhaps playing a little joke on us.
I followed the original link and several others -- and got the same 4-page "trademark registration"...
I figured those suggesting that was a patent were misinformed.
After reading the document listed above -- I have a better understanding of the issue.
That said, it appears that:
1) Apple applied for, and was granted this "EU Patent"under EU Law
2) Apple has a "supportable" claim against Sammy and others -- based on this EU Law.
3) No one had or has proven that they have a "patent" that invalidates Apples "patent"
4) All players have the same opportunities -- but they must all play within the EU's rules of the game -- if they want to sell products in the EU.
Without understanding the intricacies of the EU legal system -- it appears that "prior art" design for a "digital picture frame" or even an Etch-A-Sketch (if they had a "patent") would not invalidate this Apple "patent"
I suspect that the EU legal system will work through these issues... mas o menos!
Comments
Google wants to be in your living room selling content. Thats the next battle ground. The problem is that the cable companies who control the pipe also require their hardware and that hardware is generally manufactured by Moto.
By buying Moto, Google can provide the box and sneak software in there.
Wish Apple would have bought Moto. I don't want GoogleTV.
Google know this and this is I think they didn't buy Motorola for patents.
You apparently don't know that "black slab" is commonly used to define the modern touchscreen smartphone/tablet.
That's ok though, Logic is hard.
Only in your own mind.
slab |slab|
noun
a large, thick, flat piece of stone, concrete, or wood, typically rectangular: paving slabs | she settled on a slab of rock.
? a large, thick slice or piece of cake, bread, chocolate, etc.: a slab of bread and cheese.
? Climbing a large, smooth, steep body of rock.
? an outer piece of timber sawn from a log.
? a table used for laying a body on in a morgue.
verb ( slabs, slabbing , slabbed ) [ with obj. ] (often as noun slabbing)
remove slabs from (a log or tree) to prepare it for sawing into planks.
DERIVATIVES
slabbed adjective,
slabby adjective
ORIGIN Middle English: of unknown origin.
Only in your own mind.
slab |slab|
noun
a large, thick, flat piece of stone, concrete, or wood, typically rectangular: paving slabs | she settled on a slab of rock.
? a large, thick slice or piece of cake, bread, chocolate, etc.: a slab of bread and cheese.
? Climbing a large, smooth, steep body of rock.
? an outer piece of timber sawn from a log.
? a table used for laying a body on in a morgue.
verb ( slabs, slabbing , slabbed ) [ with obj. ] (often as noun slabbing)
remove slabs from (a log or tree) to prepare it for sawing into planks.
DERIVATIVES
slabbed adjective,
slabby adjective
ORIGIN Middle English: of unknown origin.
Slate, slab, pad and tablet are all used in various descriptions of devices like the Tab, Xoom, iPad, Nook, etc.
Let's see one showing what Apple tablets looked like before Samsung tablets
I don't know the details of all the various disputes going on, but the distinction here seems reasonable.
So far Apple's dispute with sammy and others has centred around the manner in which their products are being mimicked in one way or another, that effects how Apple and "the consumer" differentiates their products from others.
Google/Moto and Samsung on the other hand are trying to leverage tech standards they've developed and licence in defence of design practices intended to affect market perception.
Ultimately, if the two are confused tech standards become weapons that have the power to lock competitors out completely, or threaten them into submission when the holder wants a piece of the blockbuster product action that Apple or others have developed on top of those standards. That definitely seems anticompetitive.
Apples successful products with consumers is derived from their design prowess not the necessary standard tech that products need to conform to or are constructed with.
Exactly, those of you who don't agree with Apple on this one need to re-read the above post. Apple has never used standards related patents as a club to prevent anyone from competing in a market, but Samsung and Motorola are trying to do just that. Just as Microsoft strong armed the world into accepting Windows as a standard, and look at the wonderful innovation that came from them! (sarcasm) Samsung and Motorola are the ones who can't play on a level playing field. They are failing so they want to force Apple to allow them to copy Apple's products. How is this correct behavior by any stretch of the imagination?
Not necessarily!
Say companies A, B and C have competing technologies to accomplish the same task.
Company B submits its technology as a standard!
It gets accepted as a/the standard.
This can have one or more the following effects:
1) A's & C's technologies are diminished or abandoned because they are non-standard
Or in the case of Apple, continue to use their own technology wherever possible instead of using a standard because it helps them lock in.
2) B gets a cash cow -- every competitor must license the patent
See answer to number 1. Also Realize that If Motorola and Samsung are suing Apple NOW it means that Apple owes them, what? 4 years of payments? That's from before Android was picked up by either company.
3) B reduces or eliminates the competitors and/or competitive devices
No. This isn't the case. Some tech became standards for reasons other than it was the best available. Standards just make things compatible.
4) B gains some competitive advantages:
--- Lower costs, as they don't have to pay for a license for their own technology
--- Head-start and/or first-to-market, as they are in a better position to exploit their own technology
F/Rand patents have a very low revenue stream compared to non frand patents. By the time they're frand, any head start is also gone.
5) B establishes a base-line on which to build additional technology and/or standards
Not relevant.
6) B gets a seat at the table as its technology must be used in competitors devices -- just as competitors technologies must be used in B's devices
Not necessarily. And ALL of the "advantages" you listed were from a world where tech companies didn't use thier Non-Frand patents to destroy one another. It's much more profitable to Patent something and NOT make it a standard. Because Companies can REFUSE to license it, and all you get if you win is a backlog of payments, that you have to take them to court to get. When They can sue you OVER A SQUARE.
This last, is what Sammy and MMI appear to be trying to unfairly use as leverage/protection in litigation involving patented non-standard technology.
Apple is asserting that no other device can be a touchscreen dominated slab, no matter the aspect ratio, thickness, or back design. They are going after the XOOM for community design violations.
How is a Square not "standard?"
As for why I'm here, it's clear that most people who comment here don't actually read news anywhere else (nothing else explains their opinions). So If I can give them a little taste of something approaching different with just a few minutes a day, why not.
Believe it or not, you can still LIKE, even LOVE a product and question some of their choices.
Apple is asserting that no other device can be a touchscreen dominated slab, no matter the aspect ratio, thickness, or back design. They are going after the XOOM for community design violations.
Once again, please provide the patent where Apple claims that.
From FOSS Patents:
U.S. Application Serial No. 85/299,118 for the configuration of a rectangular handheld mobile digital electronic device with evenly rounded corners [the iPhone 4]
First, please provide the actual patent that is in question. Things get changed all the time between application and issuance.
More importantly, look at what that says. The patent is not for a rectangle with rounded corners. It specifically says "THE CONFIGURATION OF a rectangular...."
In spite of all the endless misinformation here, just the title shows that Apple is not claiming to have a patent on a rectangle with rounded corners - which is what a bunch of people claim.
What is relevant is what Apple actually claims, not what hordes of mindless Apple-hater SAY that Apple's patents claim. So, in the future, please provide copies of Apple's patents before you're going to pretend that they say something.
Once again, please provide the patent where Apple claims that.
He can't... He just has views -- not facts!
Exactly, those of you who don't agree with Apple on this one need to re-read the above post. Apple has never used standards related patents as a club to prevent anyone from competing in a market, but Samsung and Motorola are trying to do just that. Just as Microsoft strong armed the world into accepting Windows as a standard, and look at the wonderful innovation that came from them! (sarcasm) Samsung and Motorola are the ones who can't play on a level playing field. They are failing so they want to force Apple to allow them to copy Apple's products. How is this correct behavior by any stretch of the imagination?
How is suing anyone (only when they start making money) simply because their phones/tablets look like a Square right? Companies that you've REFUSED to pay licensing fees to for tech you stole from them.
Apple is using their patents like a club. No, they're not recognized as "standards," at least not yet, but they're broad enough and Vital enough (such as a square) that without them it would effectively lock all their competitors out of the market. You can point to Touchwiz and the GalaxyS line, and if that's all they were going after, you might have a point. But Apple's going after Motorola, they're going after HTC, they're going after Stock android devices that have a KEYBOARD attached.
Why? Because the front of them looks like a square with rounded corners. Or they somehow got a patent for unlocking the touchscreen USING the touchscreen (even with prior art existing). No, it's not "standard" patents. But that doesn't make it right, especially considering Apple isn't paying these companies for the patents to begin with.
Once again, please provide the patent where Apple claims that.
The link has been provided to you. You're on a modern browser. You are capable of leaving AI I know it's hard.
Also, look at their Community design application for the EU. IT's a rectangle with rounded corners. Buttons, screen, bezel, etc are not part of it. (This is also featured on Foss Patents and it easily googled)
People have sent you the links countless times. You ignore them.
He can't... He just has views -- not facts!
No, it's because he's been given the link countless times. I've provided him with dozens of other links in the past for other arguments. He doesn't read them, or outright ignores the post we give them to him in. Why spend time finding the SAME information over and over again if he just ignores it?
Again, Apple is suing for Community Design violations for the XOOM. How in the world would someone mistake that for an ipad?
As for why I'm here, it's clear that most people who comment here don't actually read news anywhere else (nothing else explains their opinions). So If I can give them a little taste of something approaching different with just a few minutes a day, why not.
Believe it or not, you can still LIKE, even LOVE a product and question some of their choices.
I have no problem liking a product and questioning the choices of the company who provides the product.
For example, I like Google Search... but question their ethics and the business acumen that resulted in the MMI fiasco.
So, since you have access to superior news sources, why not share them:
Where do you get your news?
First, please provide the actual patent that is in question. Things get changed all the time between application and issuance.
More importantly, look at what that says. The patent is not for a rectangle with rounded corners. It specifically says "THE CONFIGURATION OF a rectangular...."
In spite of all the endless misinformation here, just the title shows that Apple is not claiming to have a patent on a rectangle with rounded corners - which is what a bunch of people claim.
What is relevant is what Apple actually claims, not what hordes of mindless Apple-hater SAY that Apple's patents claim. So, in the future, please provide copies of Apple's patents before you're going to pretend that they say something.
JrAgosta, see post 101 above. It's got the link to the Community Design Patent that Apple is using as a club against Samsung in Germany. It only references the general shape, rectangular, and the general corner shape, slightly rounded. Absolutely nothing to do with anything other than a rectangular, rounded corner slab shape for a portable computer. According to Apple, no one can build a portable computer in the shape of a rounded corner rectangle since they were the originator. Simple as that.
The link has been posted more than once, yet you claim no one's pointed you to it. I'm beginning to wonder if you're purposely acting as tho it doesn't exist, a kind of inconvenient truth.
Just to be completely clear so that you don't misunderstand again.
This is the actual patent here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/C...000181607-0001
From the tone of your posts on this topic, it's plainly obvious that you'd consider it ridiculous if Apple actually had a patent for this. Which they do.
I have no problem liking a product and questioning the choices of the company who provides the product.
For example, I like Google Search... but question their ethics and the business acumen that resulted in the MMI fiasco.
So, since you have access to superior news sources, why not share them:
Where do you get your news?
Engadget, TIMN, Android Central, TiPB, CNN, Cnet, Groklaw, and over a dozen others (Rss readers are a wonderful thing) I occasionally even Read Fosspatents and AI. The key is to get it from several sources, not just a single one, or a single bent, like most of the people here.
I've been on AI for years, even though I only recently registered. They've gone from a great "Apple related" news source to one that is little more than a spin machine that seems to spend just as much (or more) time covering the actions of Apple's competitors than they do covering how it relates to Apple, or even Apple related news. Sure, it's good to be apprised of what Apple's competitors are doing, but not when the source you're getting that information from is a site who will make sure everything is spun to put Apple in the best possible light.
When Samsung unveiled their Galaxy S/Touchwiz devices, it was Android blogs that started putting out the first "we're not sure about this" type articles, questioning samsung's moves, and saying that it was inviting a lawsuit. Tell me, when was the last time AI posted something that questioned a move by Apple? Even recently, where a judge said that 9-10 claims against samsung weren't strong enough for any preliminary injunction, and said that he didn't feel his opinions would change (and that at least one could easily be invalidated), AI ran the story as a "Major Victory" for apple because they got the injunction on a SINGLE patent, one that Samsung could have changed before the deadline (and thus shipments remain uninterrupted)
I've done so several times.
This is what Apple is alleging against Sammy in Germany, for which they were given an injunction. That's it. No touchscreen or gesture patents, no icon similarity. Simply the rectangular shape with rounded corners, which Apple claims to have the sole rights to. Now that I've led you to the source JrAgosta, does this seem reasonable to you?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/C...000181607-0001
And a reasoned (IMO) blog on the issue.
http://www.netbooknews.com/32506/act...ding-a-tablet/
No, it's because he's been given the link countless times. I've provided him with dozens of other links in the past for other arguments. He doesn't read them, or outright ignores the post we give them to him in. Why spend time finding the SAME information over and over again if he just ignores it?
Again, Apple is suing for Community Design violations for the XOOM. How in the world would someone mistake that for an ipad?
JrAgosta, see post 101 above. It's got the link to the Community Design Patent that Apple is using as a club against Samsung in Germany. It only references the general shape, rectangular, and the general corner shape, slightly rounded. Absolutely nothing to do with anything other than a rectangular, rounded corner slab shape for a portable computer. According to Apple, no one can build a portable computer in the shape of a rounded corner rectangle since they were the originator. Simple as that.
The link has been posted more than once, yet you claim no one's pointed you to it. I'm beginning to wonder if you're purposely acting as tho it doesn't exist, a kind of inconvenient truth.
Just to be completely clear so that you don't misunderstand again.
This is the actual patent here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61944044/C...000181607-0001
From the tone of your posts on this topic, it's plainly obvious that you'd consider it ridiculous if Apple actually had a patent for this. Which they do.
The problem is that none of those are the 'patent' in question. That is a certificate of registration. The supporting documents are noticeably missing.
That's the problem with you Apple haters. You find some fragment of information and immediately start blaring crap like "Apple patented a rectangle with rounded corners" without any supporting evidence.
Please provide a copy of the PATENT that you're claiming exists. Not a trademark registration - which is an ENTIRELY different matter.
The problem is that none of those are the 'patent' in question. That is a certificate of registration. The supporting documents are noticeably missing.
Please provide a copy of the PATENT that you're claiming exists. Not a trademark registration - which is an ENTIRELY different matter.
And if you just don't understand what the document you're looking at is, here's an explanation of the EU patent law as regards Community Designs.
http://www.stoel.com/files/15Things.pdf
I've decided that you're being purposely obtuse at this point. Perhaps playing a little joke on us.
And if you just don't understand what the document you're looking at is, here's an explanation of the EU patent law as regards Community Designs.
http://www.stoel.com/files/15Things.pdf
I've decided that you're being purposely obtuse at this point. Perhaps playing a little joke on us.
I followed the original link and several others -- and got the same 4-page "trademark registration"...
I figured those suggesting that was a patent were misinformed.
After reading the document listed above -- I have a better understanding of the issue.
That said, it appears that:
1) Apple applied for, and was granted this "EU Patent"under EU Law
2) Apple has a "supportable" claim against Sammy and others -- based on this EU Law.
3) No one had or has proven that they have a "patent" that invalidates Apples "patent"
4) All players have the same opportunities -- but they must all play within the EU's rules of the game -- if they want to sell products in the EU.
Without understanding the intricacies of the EU legal system -- it appears that "prior art" design for a "digital picture frame" or even an Etch-A-Sketch (if they had a "patent") would not invalidate this Apple "patent"
I suspect that the EU legal system will work through these issues... mas o menos!